OKay, let's look at Galatians. Let's look at more than just one part though.
Let's look at 1:18, the part where Paul stays with Cephas and meets with James. Then again let's look at 2:1 and especially 2:2 where Paul submits his preaching to their judgment and2:9 where they approve and commission him.
Then we might go over to Acts 15 and the council in Jerusalem in which the Apostles speak in the name of the Holy Spirit. Leaving aside the unsupportable suggestion that the vague "some men came down from Judea," refers to apostles, we have Paul at once disagreeing with what some in the Church — even Cephas 镄 are doing and nevertheless submitting to the council, acquiescing in their decision, and accepting a commission, an apostolate, from them.
Yes, Paul rebuked Cephas, as Catherine of Siena rebuked her pope. It's good for popes to be rebuked from time to time. It keeps them humble. But he also went to Cephas and the other apostles for ratification of his ministry.
To me all this is another instance of making a difference starker than it is in reality. Sola Scriptura Protestants seem to disregard the submission of Paul to the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem, and then when Peter says that Baptism saves us, there is a slight lingering suggestion that Peter, well, okay, yeah, he's in the canon, but we don't have to believe the parts we don't like; after all, parts of the canon are "of straw", and we can cloak our selective disbelief under the rubric of using Scripture (the parts we like) to interpret Scripture (the parts we don't like).
The distinction between works of the Old Law and Grace is made so stark that the possibility that some things in the new covenant might meaningfully combine aspects of work and grace, so that a work like Baptism might be seen as a gift, is rejected out of hand.
The controversy of Baptism really highlights this. The apparent Protestant tendency to make distinctions starker than they are shows up in fervently maintaining, even after texts which show otherwise are cited, that when the Church says that Baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation she means it is the "exclusive" means of salvation.
In this thread Alamo-girl has said (if I understand her) that knowledge of God's will frees her from the law of non-contradiction and of the excluded middle. But some Protestants insist that if a thing is a "work" why it must be a "work of the law" and it thus cannot also be a "grace", while Catholics bask happily in the apparently excluded middle where merit is a gift and works are graces.
It's interesting. There's a rejection of the very reason that is required for conversation and of the kind of nuance, the "in a certain way, yes, but in another way, no" that always attends conversation about great matters. "LOL" (and the like) is considered an argument and a refutation. There's not only disagreement on the terms of discourse, there's no agreement on the nature or purpose of discourse.
Dog, Nice post.. But I think you got clergyness on the brain, Paul knew all about clergyness.. he came from that gross error.. You suppose he did this or that for reasons of "commission".. When the boy got his commission from GOD directly.. He needed no verification the others needed verification of his "spirit", and got it.. they were still quite jewish in their thinking..
After considering your post.. I, so far, believe you are spinning the events a certain way when it didt happen that way at all, I think.. I say spinning not in a negative way.. Maybe observing would be a better word.. Anyway Galatians shows Paul fighting against JEWS probably christian Jews spinning christ into jewish law.. and customs (read traditions).. Paul knew jewishness better than them.. that were trying to pervert the Gospel to ceremony and tradition.. much as many prostys try to do.. With varying success I might add..
I can in Galatians see religious jews(probably) trying to inflict clergy ceremony and tradition on the Galatians.. PAUL however, him just being SAVED from all that, reacted beautifully.. SLAPPing all that down..